Being a proud Atheist, and a freedom loving INFIDEL AKA "KUFFAR", WE are threatened by the primitive pidgeon chested jihad boys in the medieval east.
FRACK YOU!! SAY US ALL!! Don't annoy the Pagans and Bikers,, it's a islam FREE ZONE!!! LAN ASTASLEM!!!!

An
Ottoman Relic—and Turkish Ambitions in Syria—are Re-laid to Rest

Originally published under the title, "Turkey's Illusions
Hit Realities."

Hundreds
of Turkish troops entered Syria on the night of February 21 to evacuate
38 Turkish guards at the tomb of Suleyman Shah, the grandfather of the
Ottoman Empire's founder.

Turkey's dramatic miscalculation over Syria is pushing it into weird
acts. The latest was the forced relocation of a pre-Ottoman Turkish
commander's tomb from its spot in Syria to another spot in Syria, this
time a stone's throw away from the Turkish border. Relocating the tomb
seems to have been prompted by the fear of an attack from radical
Islamists -- who, ironically, Turkey wanted discreetly to support.
Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who in 2001 authored the 600-page
book, "Strategic Depth," hoped at the start of the Arab Spring,
when he served as Foreign Minister, that a belt of (Sunni) Muslim
Brotherhood-ruled regimes would proliferate in Syria, Egypt, Tunisia,
Lebanon and Libya, and be subservient to an emerging Turkish empire. To
start with Syria, therefore, the Nusayri strongman of the country,
President Bashar al-Assad, had to go.
In August 2012, Davutoglu predicted
that Assad's days in power were numbered "to a few weeks."

Turkey once hoped to see a belt of
(Sunni) Muslim Brotherhood-ruled regimes in Syria, Egypt, Tunisia,
Lebanon and Libya.

Two and a half years later, Assad is no longer Turkey's southern
neighbor. Instead, various groups of jihadists and armed comrades from
among Turkey's own restive Kurds are Turkey's new neighbors across the
910 km border. It was one of those violent groups, the Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria [ISIS, aka The Islamic State], which prompted Turkey to
perform one
of the most bizarre military operations in recent history.
Suleyman Shah was the grandfather of Osman I, the founder of the
Ottoman Empire and a revered figure for the Turks. He is believed to have
drowned in the Euphrates in 1236, and was buried in what is now Syria. In
1886, a tomb was built for him. And in 1921, when France controlled
Syria, it signed a peace treaty with Turkey and granted the Turks
sovereignty over the small plot of land that hosted Suleyman Shah's tomb.
That land would be Turkey's only sovereign land outside its own
territory.
The treaty stated that:The tomb of Suleyman Shah, the
grandfather of the Sultan Osman, founder of the Ottoman dynasty (the tomb
known under the name of Turk Mezari), situated at Jaber-Kalesi shall
remain, with its appurtenances, the property of Turkey, which may appoint
guardians for it and may hoist the Turkish flag there.
Although the tomb was relocated to a new piece of land inside Syria in
1973, due to threats from floods from a dam, its new location also became
a de
facto Turkish enclave. A garrison of 38 Turkish soldiers has stood
guard permanently at the tomb since then.
The guards were regularly replaced with new conscripts until eight
months ago when, threatened by ISIS, the Turkish military felt no longer
able to change them: The guards were besieged at the tomb, surrounded by
ISIS's jihadists who have a notoriety for destroying tombs and sepulchers
that they deem "un-Islamic."
On the night of Feb. 21, the Turkish
military sent 572 troops, 39 tanks, 57 armored vehicles and 100 other
vehicles to extract its soldiers from there.
The building was destroyed by the army (in order not to let ISIS do
that); the tomb was transferred to land just a few hundred meters away
from the Turkish border, and the risk of humiliation from a new encounter
with ISIS was averted. (In 2014, ISIS
raided the Turkish consulate in Mosul, Iraq's second biggest city,
and held hostage 46 people, including the consul general, consul staff
and their family members. The hostages were released after 101 days of
captivity under terms that were never disclosed).
The tomb rescue operation, at best, could be considered a retreat with
a rational explanation. Apparently, the Turkish government does not want
to confront ISIS, which until recently was its comrade-in-arms against
Assad. The risk of another hostage crisis with ISIS would have been too
embarrassing for Turkey's government, especially with only about 100 days
to go until critical parliamentary elections.
But instead of taking modest pride in successfully averting a crisis,
the Turkish leadership and its cheerleaders in the media -- 65% of which
it controls -- portrayed
the operation as if Turkish special forces had abducted Assad, rather
than rescuing their own besieged soldiers and the roaming tomb of a
pre-Ottoman Turkish commander.
One headline said, "The world is talking about the success of
Operation Suleyman Shah." Other headlines said: "The Turkomans
are proud"; "No permission, we just went there and took
it"; "We hit whoever stood on our way"; "The epic
[tale] of Shah Euphrates."
Social media were quickly filled with jokes teasing the
"heroes." One of them created speech balloons on a photo that
shows Davutoglu
and the top military brass managing the crisis at military
headquarters. The speech balloons say "What an escape it was!";
"How successfully we ran away, eh?"; "After all, it was a
perfect escape"; and "Let's accept it... We ran away so
skillfully..."
Another photo shows Davutoglu
with General Necdet Ozel, Turkey's top military commander. Ozel's
speech balloon reads: "Now are we abandoning the tomb?" To
which Davutoglu answers: "Do you think we should also abandon Hatay
(a Turkish city claimed by Syria)?" Meanwhile, the air force
commander looks on and says: "Strategic madness..."
In many ways, the "abduction from the tomb" is not just
neo-Ottoman skullduggery. It is yet another face of neo-Ottoman illusions
hitting hard on a wall of Middle Eastern realities.Burak Bekdil, based in Ankara, is
a columnist for the Turkish daily Hürriyet and a fellow at the Middle East
Forum.

I am halfway through a
great book entitled, It's All About Muhammad, by F. W.
Burleigh. It is a fascinating story. Muhammad comes alive, as does the town
of Mecca and the characters who lived there. I first learned about this book
from the author himself. He wrote me the following email (reprinted here with
his permission):

I would like to know if you would be willing to review it for Citizen
Warrior, as it offers an abundance of ammunition to push back Islam and is a
good supplement to your excellent book, Getting Through.

I believe this book is distinctive from anything that has been published
about Muhammad to date:

For one, it is illustrated. It is also thorough, with nearly 500 pages of
biographical details written in such a way that the reader is brought into
the action. It's almost like a novel, but it is factual and based on the
wealth of anecdotal materials about Muhammad found in the canonical
literature. It is supplemented with 47 pages of chapter notes that prove that
nothing is invented. It gives a good sampling of the weirdness of the source
material.

Among other things, the bio shows the connection between the events of
Muhammad's life and the Koran and demonstrates that the Koran was like a blog
that Muhammad maintained for 23 years. Quotes from the Koran are woven into
the narrative and show the time of origin of many of the most hate-filled
verses of the Koran — echoes of Muhammad's hatred.

Perhaps what is most different about the book is that with its illustrations
it offers itself as an example of an approach to dealing with Islam — in the
short term and in the long term. In the Epilogue, the book argues that the
best weapon that can be used to push back Islam is the truth about Muhammad,
but presented in docudramas and feature film. As you are well aware, the
truth about him is grotesque. Muhammad in fact committed almost every crime
listed by the International Criminal Court as constituting a crime against
humanity — all indictable offenses based on the evidence that can be found in
Islam's literature. The epilogue suggests a film project in which Muhammad
and his cronies are put on trial for crimes against humanity.

Islam contains the seed of its own destruction, and this seed is the truth
about Muhammad. Your book, my book, and books by many other people who
understand the insidious nature of Islam are necessary and important for
waking people up. However, how many people read books? Not that many, meaning
that their impact at best is trickle down. Yet what is needed is to bring the
masses of humanity on board for an informed push back against this evil.
Informed people are motivated people.

This can be best accomplished through the graphic presentation of the truth
about Muhammad — the truth weaponized. The truth is the weapon, the horrific
details of Muhammad's life the ammunition, the Internet and TV and ultimately
the movie theater are the delivery systems.

I'd be happy to send you a complimentary copy, but I realize your address is
not something you would likely give out to anyone — not even to the president
of the United States of America!

If you would like to have an idea of the book, you can check it out at www.zengabooks.com.
There is a sample chapter posted, Chapter 23: The Final Solution, which has
to do with the massacre of the Qurayza Jews. Also posted are the
introduction, the list of illustrations, and the Table of Contents.

Your book and your blog are first rate and put you on the front line of the
struggle against Islam. I am a late comer to the fight, but here I am along
with a ton of ammunition.

____________________________

After I started reading the book, I wrote to the author and said:
"I'm enjoying your book tremendously. Well done. You must have been
reading about Muhammad for a long time. What first got you interested in the
subject?"

Here's what he said (reprinted with his permission):

9/11 was the spark. Before that I saw Islam was something screwy, more a
disease than a religion, but didn't know much about it or Muhammad and really
didn't want to.

After 9/11, I began looking into it, but sporadically, then in 2006-2007 I
decided a truthful biography was needed with illustrations thrown in as a way
of telling Islam to go screw itself. But I didn't have time to jump into it.
However, the next few years I figured out what I needed to learn was in the
original literature, so I began acquiring everything I could get my hands
on...all the books in the bibliography and a lot more. Fortunately,
translations of important books were getting published by then, like the Life
of Muhammad of al-Waqidi, first available in 2011, which is the
definitive original work of his raids and battles.

Then I took a deep breath and began to study and write full time in 2011,
almost day in day out. It involved tearing apart about twenty of the most
important volumes of the original works, which means scanning them page by
page, and then reading them line by line, often many times, to extract the
content, and breaking everything down into many thousands of mini-files to I
could keep track of hundreds of characters, events, concepts, you name it, so
that when I wrote I had all of this stuff at my fingertips. This was
something I did as I wrote. Characters were extremely important and I
developed quite a number of characters in the book. I compiled big files on a
lot of Muhammad's friends and enemies. When you know enough about them, you
can see them as believable three-dimensional people you can identify with, as
real as anyone you hear about today in the media. All this was accompanied by
reading supplementary work that was worth studying....the works of 19th and
20th century Christian and Jewish scholars were invaluable for understanding
where Muhammad got his ideas and how he modified them to suit his delusions
about himself. I read the Koran multiple times, dissecting it so that I could
tie in events in Muhammad's life to specific verses, and on and on...it took
about three years of hard work like that to get to the end of it, and then
months of rewriting and editing until it read well.

We are in a war for survival. Islam has destroyed entire civilizations and
ours is not immune from destruction. It will take the efforts of millions of
Citizen Warriors to keep that from happening, and I've signed up for the
duration. Writing It's All About Muhammad was only
boot camp.

____________________________

In a later email, the author sent me more information about how he wrote
the book. This is what he said:

I undertook an extensive study of Islam a number of years ago and as a result
of these studies produced a comprehensive biography of Muhammad, the creator
of Islam.

Given that I put 10,000 hours of work into this, I consider myself an expert
not only in the biographical details about Muhammad, but also Islam. And that
is because Islam is all about Muhammad. Know Muhammad, know Islam. Nothing
that happens anywhere in the world that is related to Islam is unrelated to
Muhammad.

Why is this important? Why should it matter what a guy named Muhammad did in
the Wild West of Arabia 1,400 years ago? He's dead and now dust. He may be
dust, but what he created is not dust. What he created is a militant ideology
that seeks to impose itself worldwide, and it is making rapid advances where
it is least resisted.

Islam's followers model their behavior on Muhammad's. And they follow the
commands of his Koran. They believe God dictated the Koran to him and all of
its commands to commit violence against people who rejected him.

It is the assumption of all of the work I have done that Islam is
irremediably violent and always will be because Muhammad was irremediably
violent. He would never have gotten a lasting following by peaceful
proselytizing. He was only able to succeed through violence. He created a
powerful ideology of sanctified violence using sex, booty, and fear of
hellfire to rope people in and keep them roped. ISIS and the nauseating
atrocities it perpetrates are not aberrations. ISIS is Islam 101, the Islam
of Muhammad.

Islam creates chaos and strife everywhere it goes. Live even for a day in the
Middle East and you will see what will come eventually to where you are now —
unless you do something about it. But how can you do anything about it unless
you know what it is about? You have to know your enemy and your enemy is not
al-Qaeda, or ISIS, or Boko Haram. Your enemy is what is in the head of these
people and the man who put it there. Your enemy is Muhammad.

To know the truth about him is to have a weapon to defend yourself against
what he created. The truth about him is grotesque. It is a story of cruel
barbarity, assassinations, mass murder, plunder, enslavement, and on and on.
But relatively few people know anything about it, yet the truth about him is
the seed that ultimately will bring about the destruction of what he created.

There are two models
for fighting terrorism. We can see the terrorists as an external invading
force that has to be destroyed or as an internal element in our society to be
managed.

In
the War on Terror, Bush saw terrorists as an external force that had to be
fought while Obama sees them as an internal element to be managed. And while
both men signed off on some of the same tactics, their view of the conflict
at the big picture level was fundamentally different.

The differences express themselves in such things as detaining terrorists at
Guantanamo Bay or backing Islamist democracy. If Muslim terrorists are an
alien force, then detaining them without trial is no more of a problem than
detaining Nazi saboteurs was during WW2. And if Islamic terrorism is driven
by alien impulses, then it has nothing in common with us and attempting to
accommodate it cannot succeed.

Obama and the Europeans see Islamic terrorism as a social problem whose root
causes need to be resolved rather than defeated. It’s the old model used for
the radical left which was “fought” by mainstream parties adopting elements
of its program to compete with it… with disastrous results.

But the results of adopting elements of the Islamic program would be even
worse.

Obama blamed the Paris terror attacks on a failure to integrate. But Islamic
terrorism is an attempt to integrate Europe into Islam. The bombs and
bullets, like the Sharia patrols and the No-Go Zones, are statements by
Muslims that they will not be integrated into Europe. Europe must integrate
with them.

Muslim terrorists reject the assumption that they are a domestic social
problem. To the Muslim born in France or the UK, who may even be a native
convert, the domestic social problem comes from Jews and Christians who
refuse to acknowledge the supremacy of Islam, from cartoonists who draw
Mohammed and from women who leave the house. Islamic terrorism is meant to
integrate us into the Dar-al-Islam.

If we are going to view Islamic terrorism as a domestic social problem, then
we might as well take a look at how Muslim countries deal with terrorism.
They rarely declare war against it, but when they do, they tend to engage in
ruthless mass slaughter. Jordan may have killed as many as 20,000 Palestinian
Arabs in its fight with the PLO. Assad’s father may have killed 40,000
Syrians in Hama when putting down the Muslim Brotherhood. The death toll from
the current conflict hovers at around a quarter of a million.

In Muslim countries, terrorism actually is an internal element. It’s not an
alien force, but an ongoing momentum of expansion and conflict that predates
the airplane and the bomb. This is the tool that Mohammed and his successors
used to conquer sizable portions of the world. That’s why Muslim countries
don’t fight terrorism. They export it.

Jihad is a ticking time bomb that they dump on their enemies. Major Muslim
countries sponsor terrorist groups the way that we sponsor sports teams.
Sometimes they fight a terrorist group and then sponsor it and fight it
again. Sometimes they sponsor it and fight it at the same time. That’s the
kind of situation that gives counterterrorism experts headaches, but
maintains a bizarre kind of stability in the region.

A Muslim country with a terrorist problem points the terrorists
to another country. That’s a major reason why Lebanon, Syria and Iraq are
disaster areas. It’s also why our Gulf allies keep funding the terrorists
attacking America. Not only is it the religiously devout thing to do and
confers geopolitical advantages on them, but it’s also the international
equivalent of dumping your toxic waste next door.

Exporting Islamic terrorism is something that Muslim countries can do more
easily than non-Muslim countries can. The Russians are about the only
non-Muslims to have managed to do it without getting hurt too badly. Our own
efforts in dabbling with foreign Muslim terrorists have been disastrous.
Trying to export domestic Muslim terrorists into another conflict would be a
terrible idea.

Nevertheless the West is doing just that in Syria, intentionally or
unintentionally. And the consequences will be quite serious because unlike
the Saudis, we can’t keep generating international conflicts for them to
fight in fast enough to prevent them from coming home and killing Americans.

Obama and the EU are trying to manage Islamic terrorists, but only Muslim
countries can do that. In the Muslim world, terrorist groups function as
unofficial militias, proxy armies that can be dispatched to fight their
enemies. But Islamic forces fight for an Islamic cause. Obama can claim that
America is one of the world’s largest Muslim countries, but he can’t call on
their Islamic allegiance to the United States.

The most crucial decision in our approach to Islamic terrorism is to decide
whether it represents a foreign or domestic element. If we treat Muslim
terrorists as a domestic force, then we will have to cater to them. The path
of appeasement will eventually lead to adopting some form of Islamic law even
if we do it under the guise of our existing legal system, such as prosecuting
blasphemy against Islam under hate crime laws. But as we attempt to manage
Islamic terrorism, the violence will increase.

Eventually we will discover that the only way to compete with Al Qaeda or
ISIS is to adopt elements of the Islamic program, the way that the West did
with the radical left. That is what most Muslim countries have already done.
And if we do it, then we will have defeated ourselves. That is why the
approach advocated by Obama and the European Union is bound to fail. The
United States is not a Muslim country and it cannot afford to manage terror
the way that Muslim countries do.

The Islamic terrorist is not a legitimate domestic element in America, the
way that he is in Pakistan or Syria, because he has no function here. The
United States is not in need of freelance fanatical militias following a
foreign creed that puts them at odds with Americans. If we attempt to
cultivate Islamic terrorists, then we will still end up becoming their first,
or at best, second choice of targets.

The West can only defeat Islamic terrorism by treating it as a foreign
element; an outside force that must be destroyed, rather than accommodated.
Unlike Islamic countries, we cannot accommodate it without destroying what we
are. And we cannot make use of it without destroying ourselves.

Europe still insists on seeing Islamic terrorism as a domestic social problem
and if its Muslim population continues to grow, then eventually it will be
correct. Islamic terrorism will cease to be a foreign threat to Europe and
become the means by which its non-Muslims are integrated into accepting
Islamic rule.

The
United States however is not an Islamic country in any sense of the word. It
does not face the same demographic danger as France. And it should not treat
Islamic terrorism as a domestic element.

To defeat an enemy, we have to view it as external to ourselves. When we
accept Islam as a domestic phenomenon to be grappled with, managed, moderated
and deradicalized; then we give up on the possibility of defeating it because
an internal problem that is part of us can never truly be defeated.

And that defeatism becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When we treat the War on Terror like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty,
then we accept the impossibility of winning. Instead we adapt to a European
mindset of managing the fallout from the latest batch of attacks. Terrorism
becomes no different than crime; a threat we try to live through without hope
of ever seeing it end. And that way lies a police state and numberless terror
attacks for it to police.

Declarations of war are important because they remind us that we have an
external enemy. Internal enemies may be a part of us, but external enemies
are not. We can defeat them without defeating ourselves. We are not doomed to
fight an endless struggle with Islam unless we make it a part of us.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger
and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/the-course/

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation and its Role in Enforcing Islamic Law

We need to get off Saudi Barbarian OIL!!!!!Support the Canadian OIL Sands,,, and visit,, Ethicaloil.org

The gravity of the existential threat we face from Islamic Jihad is truly of epic proportions. It is essentially a battle pitting free-civilized man against a totalitarian barbarian. What is at stake is the struggle for our very soul - namely who we are and what we represent. The lives that were sacrificed for individual rights and freedoms that we've come to cherish are being chiseled away from right under our noses by the stealth jihadists. And many of us are in denial and totally clueless.

The left's appeasement and pandering to evil is nothing new. What makes their utopian delusions so infuriating and unpardonable is that it is not only they who will have to pay the consequences, and deservedly, so, they are thwarting and undermining our best efforts at resistance and are thus dragging us down in the process as well.